Personnel Administrator v. Feeney - Significance, Impact, Further Readings
Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts et al.
Helen B. Feeney
Although the intent of the Massachusetts Veteran's Preference Statute was to benefit a social category of veterans (in which women traditionally represented a significantly small percentage), the act was not gender-biased.
Chief Lawyer for Appellant
Thomas R. Kiley, Assistant Attorney General of Massachusetts
Chief Lawyer for Appellee
Richard P. Ward
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun, Warren E. Burger, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., William H. Rehnquist, John Paul Stevens, Potter Stewart (writing for the Court), Byron R. White
William J. Brennan, Jr., Thurgood Marshall
Date of Decision
5 June 1979
Lifetime benefits extended to veterans which allowed hiring preference over non-veterans, under Massachusetts statute, did not violate Fourteenth Amendment equal protection standards. Discrimination against women was not at issue because statutory preferences made a distinction only between veterans and non-veterans rather than between men and women.
- Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 (1976).
- Massachusetts Bd. of Retirement v. Murgia, 427 U.S. 307 (1976).
- Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977).
- United Jewish Organizations v. Carey, 430 U.S. 144 (1977).
- Peter A. Reilly Trial: 1974 1976 - A Son Confesses, Jury Opts For Manslaughter, New Evidence Results In Reversal
- People v. White - Significance, Double Execution, Unique Defense, The Blame Game
- Personnel Administrator v. Feeney - Significance
- Personnel Administrator v. Feeney - Further Readings
- Personnel Administrator v. Feeney - Impact
- Other Free Encyclopedias